“Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress?” – Patrick Henry, on the importance of the independent Militia.
“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the_real_object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” Id.
“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
The concern was born in a great part, perhaps the greatest, with the concern that the government would disempower the people. The Bill of Rights was meant to limit the federal government control over both the people and the states. When we understand it in this light, we see that our concept of why we should be able to bear arms and the type of arms we do is very different from the original.
I’m not against the right to bear arms at all. However, the arguments based on fear of some random intruder was not the underlying reason – it was to protect the individual from the tyranny of those trying to enslave him.